Category Archives: Uncategorized

Adrian Dix: BC’s Energy Future

Uncategorized
Share

EDITOR’S NOTE: Over the past several weeks, we’ve brought you the energy policy visions of Mike Farnworth and John Horgan. This week, in advance of the BC NDP leadership convention, we bring you a statement from the other main contender in the race – Adrian Dix.

—————————————————————————————————————-

The current chaos within the Christy Clark government around the proposed 50% rate hike is really only the tip of a very large iceberg that the Liberals have created in the past few years. The long term plan to privatize, break up and sideline BC Hydro was premised on the creation of an entirely new corporate sector in BC: so-called independent power producers (IPPs).  In many ways it was a “solution” looking for a problem.  The results are clear: rising rates, huge liabilities forced on Hydro in the form of contracts with the IPPs, weak environmental assessment of IPPs, and overall electricity policy in a shambles.
 
Throughout this leadership campaign, I have said we must have a moratorium on new IPP projects and contracts. We  have to stop this train wreck, now. I said if we need to open up the contracts and the policies that drove the contracts and attempt to salvage the public interest in the immediate term. If that means tough re-negotiations to protect us from long term financial liabilities, then that is what will occur. My commitment is very simple: the Liberals’ IPP party will end, the clean-up will start, and the public must be spared the hang-over.
 
The central role of BC Hydro must be restored and a credible long term electricity plan created. Within that conservation and efficiency must be central. I have proposed an “energy efficiency mega-project” that will employ construction workers throughout BC to retrofit public buildings  such as schools, hospitals and offices.

Similar programs are needed for homes and private buildings. Conservation is job-intensive and critical to reducing the environmental footprint of our energy use and production.
 
While projects such as energy efficiency retrofits will help reduce greenhouse gases, we must do much more. I have called for regulations and standards to reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon tax, even extended to industry, won’t do sufficiently what regulations will do. When society decided to ban DDT, we did not tax it – it was regulated.  I am also committed to pressuring Ottawa to develop a credible federal plan to deal with climate change so that provinces are not not acting in a vacuum. The BC Liberals’ support for Harper’s inaction will be ended and I will engage Ottawa and other provinces so Canada starts leading, rather than avoiding, climate solutions.
 
I am committed to scrapping the BC Liberal support for offshore oil and gas exploration, for the oil tankers and for the Enbridge pipeline. We must stop undertaking these projects just so the tar sands can be expanded at an exponential rate of growth.  British Columbians never signed our province up for that role and we should not accept it.
 
I was also the first leadership candidate to commit to expanded public scrutiny with specific steps for upstream oil and gas operations in BC.  I have committed to reviews of fracking, sour gas emissions and upstream greenhouse gas emissions in order to get public accountability and to identify concrete pollution reduction solutions. Doing nothing and relying on the Liberals’ policies of self-regulation in the gas fields are not satisfactory to me, any more than the IPP free-for-all has been. Putting politics aside, BC needs a change in government to save our environment and I believe I can provide the leadership to help make the NDP government again, and start the process of change.

Share

Seattle Times: Plutonium fuel could be used at Hanford power plant

Uncategorized
Share

From the Seattle Times – March 18, 2011

by Sandy Doughton

The operator of Washington’s only nuclear-power plant is considering
use of the plutonium fuel that has raised special concerns about one of
Japan’s damaged nuclear reactors.

Officials at the Columbia Generating Station, on the Hanford nuclear
reservation, have been quietly discussing the use of so-called mox fuel
for at least two years — but had hoped to keep the fact out of the news.

In the case of an accident, some experts say fuel made from highly
toxic plutonium can produce more dangerous fallout than standard uranium
fuel. Plutonium fuel is also harder to control, said nuclear scientist
Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research.

The nuclear-watchdog group Heart of America Northwest sued the
plant’s operator this week, alleging that Energy Northwest improperly
withheld information about the proposal requested under the federal
Freedom of Information Act.

Spokeswoman Rochelle Olson said Energy Northwest and Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) have been discussing the use of
mox, or mixed oxide fuel, but don’t know if they will conduct a
feasibility study. “We have made no decisions,” she said. “The first
priority for us is the safe operation of our nuclear-generating
station.”

Use of plutonium reactor fuel could help draw down stockpiles from
weapons production and dismantling of nuclear warheads, Olson said. And
because the country is anxious to find an application for it, plutonium
fuel could be cheaper.

No U.S. nuclear plants currently use the plutonium fuel.

This week, Japan deployed firetrucks and helicopters to dump water on
the No. 3 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex, where
stored fuel rods are overheating and containment structures may have
been damaged. The reactor is the only one in the complex to use mox
fuel.

“The possibility of a very significant plutonium release and
subsequent plutonium contamination of areas around the plant … is a
very big issue at reactor 3,” said Dr. Ira Helfand, of Physicians for
Social Responsibility, an anti-nuclear group.

What it is

Even uranium fuel contains some plutonium, which is produced during
the fission process. Mox fuel, which is a mixture of uranium and
plutonium, contains a higher proportion of plutonium — between 5 and 9
percent, Makhijani said. Plutonium has a half life of 250,000 years.
Inhaling a few particles can cause lung cancer.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is building a
$4.8 billion plant to turn weapons-grade plutonium into fuel at the
Department of Energy’s Savannah River site in South Carolina. But so
far, few utilities have expressed interest in using it.

Hanford’s nuclear experts are experienced in handling weapons-grade
material, Olson said. “It makes sense for us to study the technology to
see if it’s feasible.”

But officials wanted to keep their studies quiet. “I assume this info
will stay between PNNL and DOE NNSA,” said a December 2009 e-mail
released last year to the environmental group Friends of the Earth under
a public records request. “Just don’t want any unexpected press
releases about burning MOX fuel in (Columbia Generating Station).”

Other documents lay out a timeline starting in 2013 with
incorporation of a few plutonium fuel elements into the reactor core.
The elements would be tested for six years, followed by a phase-up to
full operations in 2025. Even then, mox fuel would only make up 30
percent of the reactor core.

Olson said the timeline was theoretical, and is already outdated. All
cost estimates were redacted from the released documents, triggering
this week’s legal challenge.

“Nasty stuff”

Some nuclear experts question whether plutonium fuel is significantly
more dangerous than uranium fuel. In an accident, it’s the easily
dispersed isotopes like radioactive iodine and cesium that account for
most of the health effects, Makhijani said. Plutonium is heavy and
wouldn’t be widely spread.

But its toxicity is so high that even small amounts can be dangerous.
“Plutonium is nasty stuff and you don’t want it in the environment,”
Makhijani said.

Olson pointed out that the 1,150-megawatt Columbia Generating Station has never experienced a radiation release.

Commissioned in 1984, the plant produces about 9 percent of
Washington’s electricity. Energy Northwest has applied for relicensing
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If granted, the new license would
be good until 2043.

Incorporating mox fuel would require a license modification, Olson said.

Because only a small amount of plutonium is left after the fuel is
burned, spent rods would not be a target for terrorists intent on making
weapons, she added.

Read original article

Share

Canadian Food Inspection Agency widens radiation testing, includes B.C. milk

Uncategorized
Share

From Alberta Farmer Express – April 8, 2011

Canada’s sampling and testing regime for radiation from Japan’s nuclear crisis has been expanded to include domestically-produced milk from British Columbia along with food products imported from Japan.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency emphasized in a statement Wednesday that it has yet to detect related radionuclides — atoms or atomic particles emitting radiation — at or above Health Canada’s “action levels” in any of the products it’s sampled.

The expansion of testing to include B.C. milk was described strictly as “a prudent measure (taken) out of an abundance of caution to reaffirm the safety of this dietary staple for the majority of Canadians.”

“Negligible” levels of radioactivity have been detected along North America’s West Coast, the agency said Wednesday. Radiation levels found on the West Coast are now “less than the natural levels of radiation that would be detected when it rains or snows,” CFIA said.

Four samples of domestically-produced milk from B.C. had been tested by Wednesday to verify that milk remains safe for consumption, CFIA said. All were below Health Canada action levels for “pertinent radionuclides.”

“Additional products may be assessed in the future as the situation evolves and circumstances warrant,” CFIA said.

Imports

Even before the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan on March 11, Japanese food products made up less than 0.3 per cent of Canada’s total food imports, and imports from Japan are now at “very low” levels.

So far, CFIA said Wednesday, it has tested nine samples from Japanese food and feed imports and found all products below Health Canada’s action levels for radionuclides.

The agency’s testing approach targets the commodities that would pose the greatest potential risk to consumers, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, and also includes a broader range of other commodities, CFIA said.

If any products are found with levels above Health Canada’s action levels for radionuclides they’d be disposed of following protocols from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the agency said.

Since April 1, CFIA has blocked entry of any food or feed from Japan without acceptable documentation or test results verifying its safety, if the food or feed comes from any of 12 prefectures affected by the ongoing nuclear crisis. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) now refers all shipments of food and feed from Japan to CFIA’s National Import Service Centre.

Japan is still battling to control nuclear reactors in the country’s northeast that were damaged by the quake and tsunami. Workers have recently been able to stop radioactive water leaking into the ocean from the damaged reactors, but experts have said the reactors are still far from being under control.

That said, the Reuters news service on Wednesday quoted a United Nations official as saying the reactor accident is not expected to have any serious impact on people’s health, based on the information available now.

Total diet

CFIA noted Wednesday that the federal government already collects information on normal background levels of radionuclides in food as part of Health Canada’s total diet study.

The total diet study is a survey used to estimate Canadians’ exposure to various contaminants through the food supply. The data collected provides a baseline of the normal levels of such materials in food.

Read original article

Share

DFO Shilling for Salmon Farmers: Outrageous Briefing Note

Uncategorized,
Share

Over the years, starting in earnest with the Kemano Completion Project fight in 1993, I’ve been highly critical of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and its politicization by the Mulroney government of that day. I was hit with a massive lawsuit by former Minister Tom Siddon which my insurers stupidly settled (I made that comment publicly immediately upon the news release). I had support from many former DFO scientists and I’m satisfied that my statements were accurate. When the KCP was approved in 1986 this was because the politicians told DFO to do as it was told.

Now we have proof of DFO working on behalf of salmon farmers via a document filed at the Cohen Commission. To be truthful, it makes me feel ill to read it and report on it. The only conclusion one can come to is that the DFO is a willing arm of the fish farm Industry.

It’s styled as a “BRIEFING NOTE FOR THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HABITAT MANAGEMENT”

MEETING WITH BC SALMON FARMERS ASSOCIATION REGARDING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE AND AQUACULTURE.

The meeting was for May 4, 2005 with Mary Ellen Walling of the BC Salmon Farmers’ Association, David Rideout of the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, the Deputy Minister and other senior DFO staff and – get this – the primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss the challenges facing the BC salmon farming industry with respect to public confidence in aquaculture practices, as well as in the government regulation of the industry. (You will note that none of the independent scientists who had raised concerns about fish farming were to be present. No Alexandra Morton…no Martin Kroksek…no John Volpe…no Neil Frazer…no Daniel Pauly…and on the list of absentees goes).

It goes on to say, “As lead federal department for aquaculture, DFO has explicitly committed to improving public confidence in aquaculture. To deliver on this commitment, the department has undertaken several initiatives to raise public confidence in the context of aquaculture.” (my emphasis)

Can you believe this?

The document is a screed of helpful hints for the director as he marches hand in hand with the fish farmers to bury the truth, to be replaced with fish farmer propaganda including such gems as “developing a long term proactive strategy for raising pubic confidence in aquaculture…targeting information for the general public, rather than trying to directly challenge the media campaigns being carried out by well funded ENGOs.” It speaks of Regional Communications and Aquaculture Management Staff to “manage the file”.

Ponder that: a “Communications and Aquaculture Management staff”??? Would not “Fish Farmers’ Propaganda Department” be synonymous? This is our DFO taking care of the public interest?

The fish farmers have corrupted the DFO, which in turn was more than willing to be corrupted.

Here’s a little gem for you:

“Indications from pacific region are that the recent meeting with Mary Ellen Walling [flack for the fish farmers – eidtor’s note] was positive and industry seemed satisfied with the progress made at the meeting. The region committed to regular meetings with Mary Ellen Walling.” (emphasis mine)

Can you believe this! Industry seemed satisfied!

Thank God for that! One trembles to think of the consequences if good old Mary Ellen had been dissatisfied!

There is a link provided to this document and you can read it all for yourself.

I scarcely know where to start.

This is a huge vindication for people like Alexandra Morton who stood, unfunded, up to the bully. I can only imagine how she must feel seeing the despicable supposedly protector of our fish as corrupt as a Tammany Hall sort of City Hall. I don’t speak of monetary corruption. I’m reminded of the jingle:

“You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
(thank God!) the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there’s no occasion to.”

How the hell do these people sleep at night? What do they tell people what they do for a living? It surely would be easier in that regard to be the piano player in a house of ill repute.

Where have our politicians been? Where the hell has the mainstream media been? I’ve never been prouder of the fact that I was forced out because of my support for Alexandra Morton. To be in journalism and not report on this would be to accept dirty money.

Do not, for the love of God, let the provincial government off the hook. Until Ms. Morton’s lawsuit, the BC government was the leading shill.

The governments ought to be ashamed but so should backbenchers for not asking questions. There was no shortage of questions raised outside the house – they knew what I was saying all too well. Where the hell were they when to be a politician took a little guts?

The governmental process at both levels of senior government should hang their heads in shame and more fool us if we don’t throw them all out on their tender asses.

2005 DFO Briefing Note (PDF)

Damien Gillis’ Video From 2009 confronting DFO at Aquanor, the world’s largest fish farming trade show:

Share

Cohen Sockeye Inquiry: Unguarded note conveys Fisheries’ manager’s frustrations

Uncategorized, ,
Share

From The Globe & Mail – April 5, 2011

by Mark Hume

An unguarded note a Department of Fisheries and Oceans manager wrote
to himself has given a judicial inquiry a glimpse into the frustrations
and fears felt by frontline staff fighting to save salmon habitat in
British Columbia.

The brief, one-page document written by Jason
Hwang, a manager for DFO’s Habitat and Enhancement Branch in the
Kamloops area, was entered as evidence at the Cohen commission on
Tuesday by Judah Harrison, a lawyer representing a coalition of
conservation groups.

Mr. Harrison, who obtained the document through disclosure, described
it as “a sort of unguarded critique” of DFO’s struggles to protect
habitat.

“Well, I definitely agree it’s unguarded,” said Mr.
Hwang, who was one of three DFO witnesses testifying on habitat issues.
“I believe I wrote that for myself for some upcoming planning meeting. .
. .trying to reflect on some key things we were grappling with.”

Mr. Hwang said the note is a few years old, but in response to questions from Mr. Harrison, he agreed things haven’t changed.

“Huge
amount of development in Thompson, Okanagan, Nicola, Shuswap. We can’t
keep up. Referral backlog is up to 4 months,” wrote Mr. Hwang, whose
department is responsible for ensuring salmon habitat is not degraded by
logging, mining, agriculture, urban growth and other activities. “We
are not able to pursue smaller occurrences that in the past we have
pursued and prosecuted.”

Earlier in the week, the commission heard
that DFO is not meeting its key policy goal of ensuring that
developments do not cause a net loss of fish habitat. The commission,
which is examining the decline of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River,
also heard DFO’s effectiveness was hampered by a new habitat management
policy (known as the Environmental Process Modernization Plan, or EPMP),
which staff in B.C. resisted because it was “lowering the bar” on
environmental protection.

“EPMP and staff reductions have reduced
our ability to engage with proponents. . .we don’t have a handle on what
is actually going on,” Mr. Hwang stated in his note.

“We have no viable referral system. This is killing us,” he stated.

“We
are without question not attaining no net loss. . .Our staff are very
dis-illusioned [sic] that the department is not doing more to address
this.

“The relationship between province and DFO is in a state of
disfunction [sic]. We don’t coordinate on referrals in any consistent
way, and there is no guidance or leadership from Vancouver-Victoria on
this.”

Mr. Hwang also wrote DFO was not keeping up with the
increased logging authorized by the province in response to the mountain
pine-beetle epidemic, which has swept through much of the B.C.
Interior, killing huge stands of timber.

“We are totally
disengaged from operational forestry. Rates of cut have increased
massively in response to MPB. We don’t have a handle on what is going
on, and are not providing any meaningful guidance on what we would like
to see for fish,” wrote Mr. Hwang.

The frank assessment of DFO’s
failings contrasted with the more cautious evaluations given in direct
testimony by Mr. Hwang, and his co-witnesses, Patrice LeBlanc, director
of habitat policies for DFO in Ottawa, and Rebecca Reid, a regional
director in the Pacific.

They portrayed DFO as doing a good job despite the challenges of budget restrictions and staffing cuts.

Dr.
Craig Orr, who was observing proceedings as executive director of the
Watershed Watch Salmon Society, said he was dismayed by the testimony.

“The
evidence supports the widely held belief that government is more
concerned with streamlining harmful industrial development and
bolstering flagging public confidence than in protecting critical salmon
habitat,” he said.

Read original article

Share

Doctors express “deep concern” about Fukushima impacts on Canada

Uncategorized
Share

From the Vancouver Observer – April 1, 2011

by Linda Solomon

How do we know how much radiation is reaching Canada from Fukushima?
Physicians for Global Survival asked, in a press release today.  They
added that physicians for Global Survival “would like more openness from
safety regulators and government about all isotopes, honesty about
methods of measurement and regular updates about risks to vulnerable
populations.”

 “Physicians for Global Survival  is deeply
concerned about the long term health of populations exposed due to
accidental or planned releases of radioactivity from Fukushima and from
domestic power plants.”

How the US monitors radiation

“The US uses a system of RadNet monitors,” the release said, adding that:

Radiation monitors are “point source” monitors, meaning that the
radioactive element or ray must actually strike the monitor to be
measured.  They are unlikely to detect radiation as close as twenty five
feet above or beside them.  Apparently there are only about 125 of
these monitors for the entire continental United States, Hawaii and
Alaska.

Feel secure yet?

“News reports mention Iodine-131 and Cesium-137, not because they are
the only radioactive elements discharged from the stricken reactors in
Fukushima, but because they are the easiest to detect and measure,” the
report added. 

“They both give off gamma rays (like x-rays for
which technicians wear little badges) when they decay.  Iodine releases
gamma rays directly and cesium, indirectly when its short-lived decay
product, barium-137m, undergoes further decay.”

 What about Canada?

According
to reports from the Gentilly 2 reactor in Quebec, there are 48
radioactive elements identified in regular emissions and, according to
the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, there may be more than 225
radioactive elements produced in a fully functioning nuclear reactor. 
Aside from plutonium, news reports are silent.

 Alpha and beta
radioactivity are more difficult to measure.  RadNet measures them by 
“vacuuming” the air and passing it through a filter.  The amount on the
filter is then measured.  Sources are contradictory about amount of time
between detection, measurement and speed at which the public can be
informed. 

 Because of their poor external penetrance – alpha
particles can’t penetrate skin and beta particles don’t go much further
than a few millimeters – their danger has been discounted.  As internal
emitters, however, their damage can be extensive.  Absorbed in a human
body through eating or breathing, they can change enzymes, dislodge
ions, and upset strands of DNA.     

 Radioactive iodine-131
causes cancer by this type of mechanism.  The human body absorbs iodine
from food for the production of a thyroid hormone that is important for
normal growth, intellectual ability and daily energy – ask anyone who
has had a “low” thyroid.  While in the thyroid, radioactive iodine emits
beta particles.  Cells have genes which determine their rate of growth
and life spans.  Beta particles alter these genes and, eventually, in
those who develop cancer, turn off the “growth control” gene so that
cells grow wildly out of control producing cancer.

 Fortunately
the danger from radioactive iodine is relatively short-lived.  With a
half-life of  eight days, one tonne becomes a mere 62.5 kilograms in a
month.  The danger can be decreased but not eliminated by taking
potassium iodide tablets immediately before exposure.

Iodine-131,
however, is not the only radioactive element released from Fukushima –
or from any nuclear power plant, the group said in the news release.

Read original article

Share
Arsenic Well Chart

Hair Analysis and Arsenic in Lillooet

Uncategorized
Share

In 2001 when we decided to purchase property in Lillooet—a long held dream—we had no idea there was an arsenic problem in Lillooet’s water supply–until 2009. Local exposure is unquantifiable (few test(s) or results) until 2006. The MAC (maximum allowable concentration) was .0250 mg/L, set from wells inception: Conway #1 in 1994, Conway #2 in 1995, Rec Centre #1 in 1996. Then in 2006 the MAC was lowered to .010 mg/L. IHA explained short term exposure over MAC’s was OK by them (but they do not live here). Note too, that all four wells (one defunct since 2009) are located within the 50’ exclusion zone for rail lines, where sprays may be used to reduce plant growth, with possible discharge of diesel oil, brake fluid etc.

The LRA pressured the IHA to do an ongoing testing regime and publish them on the district’s website–available online. Note the wells are due to start up mid-April, but may be operating—we can’t be sure as the system is automated. According to recent records from the DOL the arsenic levels are higher than ever: March 01/11 Conway #2 at .037 mg/L, and March 15/11 Conway #2 at .033 mg/L. Excellent reasons to abandon our wells—rather than abandon our creeks, which has been DoL policy since 2007.
Living in Lillooet only part time for 7 out of 10 years to date, and drinking only RO water, until 2009 I was cooking with tap water—which causes a concentration of the poisonous effects (eg. cooking rice). About 15 months ago, I had a hair analysis done (alternative medicine); the result was .023 for arsenic, then after drinking and cooking with only Reverse Osmosis water for over a year, the follow up test read .016. Arsenic absorbs into our garden produce and our skin so it seems unavoidable.

The graph below shows the well arsenic test results for 2010 from District/IHA; you can see the levels over the maximum allowable are of concern to the LRA especially since the two Conway Park wells deliver arsenic water undiluted into the mains. This hopefully answers questions posed in the BRLN March 30/11 and stresses the importance of being involved with community issues.

Arsenic Well Chart

Share

Shades of Green: Suzuki, Madoff and Ponzi Schemes

Uncategorized,
Share

David Suzuki’s presence at the March showing of his biographical film, Force of Nature, guaranteed that the Quadra Island Community Centre would be packed. The film itself was both informative and poignant, an artful blending of one of Suzuki’s most powerful and eloquent environmental speeches with scenes from his childhood, his rising profile as a geneticist, his ascent as an internationally known broadcaster – his television program, The Nature of Things, has been running for decades – his media status as a world-acclaimed environmentalist, and now his additional role as a senior citizen and a grandfather. Suzuki’s personal and reflective comments about his life were insightful, honest, brave and inspiring.

But the evening also had a sad and sobering edge. While Suzuki’s enthusiastic response to questions after the film revealed a passion still burning with intensity, he seemed frustrated that his tenacity, his teaching, his warnings, his TV programs and his profile as an advocate for the sanctity of nature had not translated into significant environmental reform. Indeed, from Suzuki’s perspective as a scientist, our collective human behaviour is plunging our planet into ecological crisis, with little more than token efforts to avert a looming catastrophe. And Canada, his home country, has a government so indifferent – sometimes even obstructionist – as to be an exasperating embarrassment.

Suzuki attempted to attribute his failed influence on the character of television itself, a medium with shrinking units of concentration and rising levels of superficiality that seems to translate even dire subjects into entertainment and passivity. But a much better explanation for his failure may come from the ponzi scheme that allowed Bernard Madoff to bilk billions of dollars from usually thoughtful investors. This is a subject that Margaret Heffernan explores most thoughtfully in Why We See No Evil (Globe & Mail, Feb. 19/11). If Heffernan is correct, the forces that allowed Madoff to operate for so long are also allowing the environmental degradation of our planet.

Heffernan argues that people have “a preference for the familiar”, a trait that keeps them doing what they usually do, whether it be investing money in an unsafe place or exploiting their surroundings beyond ecological sustainability. Just as they have an affinity for other people of the same culture, tastes and values, they also have an affinity for familiar products, attitudes and behaviour. If they are accustomed to high levels of consumption, easy garbage disposal, throw-away products, foreign holidays, high meat diets, new technology and big cars, then their inclination is to continue with this lifestyle, despite all the warnings that this behaviour may be fundamentally flawed. Just as a momentum of common acceptance, trust and opinion blinds them to a faulty investment scheme, it also blinds them to the ecological damage surrounding them.

Heffernan notes that this “willful blindness” is not a legal excuse or defence in law. People who could have known, and should have known, are treated as if they did know, and are therefore held responsible for their behaviour. Although people may feign unawareness and pretend they are not responsible for their investment strategies or environmental impact, they are ultimately culpable. At some point in the accumulation of available evidence, ignorance becomes intentional denial and is no longer available as an excuse.

This “willful blindness” also works at a “collective” level. As Heffernan notes, “the availability of others to take action blinds us to our personal responsibility and capacity” to act. Events have illustrated innumerable times that “the larger the number of witnesses to a crime or accident, the less likely it is than anyone will intervene.” This form of mass inertia begins to explain how a society is immobilized to take collective measures to rectify an environmental problem. Everyone is waiting for someone else to act. Governments wait for direction from their voting public while the voting public waits for initiatives from their governments. Meaningful change must overcome this handicap.

In a complicating twist to this process, Heffernan points out that “organizations can make themselves structurally blind by what they reward and what they don’t.” In a “strong sales culture” such as banking, scrutiny is low because the objective is to move money, not to judge it. This is why banks never exposed Madoff. Transpose this tendency to a consumer society and the environmental implications are immediately evident. Caution, restraint and sustainability are not its guiding principles. Participation in such a society is measured by spending – the latest gadget, fashion, trend or fad – but not restraint. Join in or be left out. The net result is a high-speed pillaging of the planet by a willful and collective blindness. No wonder Suzuki feels ineffective.

In the last part of Heffernan article, she points out that “seeing what is going on inside our organizations is the toughest question of all – and the bigger the business, the harder the problem.” The wider and deeper Madoff’s ponzi scheme spread, the more invisible it became and the more difficult it was to stop. The same dynamic applies to a consumer society. Recognizing its failings and steering it to sustainability is an enormous challenge. Accordingly, those who are heroic enough to warn about faulty investment schemes, precarious financial systems or collapsing ecologies are rare – and may even suspect and vilified for their efforts.

Heffernan reminds us, however, that “history is full of remarkable individuals who have proved it is possible to see better.” They invariably share the traits of being optimists, detailed thinkers, concerned for victims, seekers of fresh wisdom and eschewers of conventional leadership – all the attributes demonstrated by Suzuki in Force of Nature. But Heffernan also notes with some foreboding that such people often become disillusioned. Perhaps Suzuki – and everyone like him – should brace themselves for this prospect.

Share

George Monbiot Defends Nuclear Power

Uncategorized
Share

From Monbiot.com – Mar 21, 2011

by George Monbiot

How the Fukushima disaster taught me to stop worrying and embrace nuclear power.

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 22nd March 2011

You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have
changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they
have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no
longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a
monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed,
knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt
down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and
corner-cutting(1). Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive
pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by
xkcd.com(2). It shows that the
average total dose from the Three-Mile Island disaster for someone
living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly
amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the
lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which,
in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I’m not
proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.

If other forms of energy production caused no damage, these impacts
would weigh more heavily. But energy is like medicine: if there are no
side-effects, the chances are that it doesn’t work.

Like most greens, I favour a major expansion of renewables. I can
also sympathise with the complaints of their opponents. It’s not just
the onshore windfarms that bother people, but also the new grid
connections (pylons and power lines). As the proportion of renewable
electricity on the grid rises, more pumped storage will be needed to
keep the lights on. That means reservoirs on mountains: they aren’t
popular either.

The impacts and costs of renewables rise with the proportion of power
they supply, as the need for both storage and redundancy increases. It
may well be the case (I have yet to see a comparative study) that up to a
certain grid penetration – 50 or 70% perhaps? – renewables have smaller
carbon impacts than nukes, while beyond that point, nukes have smaller
impacts than renewables.

Like others, I have called for renewable power to be used both to
replace the electricity produced by fossil fuel and to expand the total
supply, displacing the oil used for transport and the gas used for
heating fuel. Are we also to demand that it replaces current nuclear
capacity? The more work we expect renewables to do, the greater the
impacts on the landscape will be, and the tougher the task of public
persuasion.

But expanding the grid to connect people and industry to rich,
distant sources of ambient energy is also rejected by most of the greens
who complained about the blog post I wrote last week(3).
What they want, they tell me, is something quite different: we should
power down and produce our energy locally. Some have even called for the
abandonment of the grid. Their bucolic vision sounds lovely, until you
read the small print.

At high latitudes like ours, most small-scale ambient power
production is a dead loss. Generating solar power in the UK involves a
spectacular waste of scarce resources(4,5).
It’s hopelessly inefficient and poorly matched to the pattern of
demand. Wind power in populated areas is largely worthless. This is
partly because we have built our settlements in sheltered places; partly
because turbulence caused by the buildings interferes with the airflow
and chews up the mechanism. Micro-hydropower might work for a farmhouse
in Wales; it’s not much use in Birmingham.

And how do we drive our textile mills, brick kilns, blast furnaces
and electric railways – not to mention advanced industrial processes?
Rooftop solar panels? The moment you consider the demands of the whole
economy is the moment at which you fall out of love with local energy
production. A national (or, better still, international) grid is the
essential prerequisite for a largely renewable energy supply.

Some greens go even further: why waste renewable resources by turning
them into electricity? Why not use them to provide energy directly? To
answer this question, look at what happened in Britain before the
industrial revolution.

The damming and weiring of British rivers for watermills was
small-scale, renewable, picturesque and devastating. By blocking the
rivers and silting up the spawning beds, they helped bring to an end the
gigantic runs of migratory fish that were once among our great natural
spectacles and which fed much of Britain: wiping out sturgeon, lampreys
and shad as well as most seatrout and salmon(6).

Traction was intimately linked with starvation. The more land that
was set aside for feeding draft animals for industry and transport, the
less was available for feeding humans. It was the 17th-Century
equivalent of today’s biofuels crisis. The same applied to heating fuel.
As EA Wrigley points out in his new book Energy and the English
Industrial Revolution, the 11 million tonnes of coal mined in England in
1800 produced as much energy as 11 million acres of woodland (one third
of the land surface) would have generated(7).

Before coal became widely available, wood was used not just for
heating homes but also for industrial processes: if half the land
surface of Britain had been covered with woodland, Wrigley shows, we
could have made 1.25 million tonnes of bar iron a year (a fraction of
current consumption(8))
and nothing else(9). Even with a much lower population than today’s,
manufactured goods in the land-based economy were the preserve of the
elite. Deep green energy production – decentralised, based on the
products of the land – is far more damaging to humanity than nuclear
meltdown.

But the energy source to which most economies will revert if they
shut down their nuclear plants is not wood, water, wind or sun, but
fossil fuel. On every measure (climate change, mining impact, local
pollution, industrial injury and death, even radioactive discharges)
coal is 100 times worse than nuclear power(10,11). Thanks to the expansion of shale gas production, the impacts of natural gas are catching up fast(12).

Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I
would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless
alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology
carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic
energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests,
and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at
Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.

Read original article

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/14/nuclearpower-energy

2. http://xkcd.com/radiation/

3. http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/16/atomised/

4. http://www.monbiot.com/2010/03/01/a-great-green-rip-off/

5. http://www.monbiot.com/2010/03/12/the-german-disease/

6. Callum Roberts, 2007. The Unnatural History of the Sea. Gaia Thinking, London.

7. EA Wrigley, 2010. Energy and the English Industrial Revolution, pages 37 and 39. Cambridge University Press.

8. The UK steel requirement in 2009 was 15.6m tonnes. http://www.eef.org.uk/uksteel/About-the-industry/Steel-facts/Steel-markets-UK.htm

9. EA Wrigley, as above, pages 16 and 17.

10. In the case of radioactive pollution, the 100 times is not
figurative: according to Scientific American, the fly ash produced by a
coal-burning power plant “carries into the surrounding environment 100
times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same
amount of energy.” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

11. Mark Lynas has just produced his first estimates for the amount
of extra carbon dioxide which could be released as a result of the
international reaction to the Fukushima crisis. http://www.marklynas.org/2011/03/176/

12. See http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/

Share

Japan may have lost race to save nuclear reactor

Uncategorized
Share

From The Guardian – March 29, 2011

by Ian Sample

The radioactive core in a reactor at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power
plant appears to have melted through the bottom of its containment
vessel and on to a concrete floor below, experts say, raising fears of a
major release of radiation at the site.

Richard Lahey, who has
worked on the plant at Fukushima, told the Guardian officials seemed to
have “lost the race” to save the reactor, but added that there was no
danger of a Chernobyl-style catastrophe.

His warning came as Nick
Clegg, the deputy prime minister, signalled that Britain could take a
step back from nuclear power in the wake of the disaster.

Speaking
on a trip to Mexico, Clegg said the resulting uncertainty for the
nuclear industry could make it more likely the industry would need a
public subsidy, which the coalition would be unable to provide.

“We
have always said there are two conditions for the future of nuclear
power [the next generation of power stations] have to be safe and can
not let the taxpayer be ripped off,” he said.

Eight new nuclear plants are due for construction in the UK.

Meanwhile
the Health Protection Agency said that traces of radioactivity believed
to come from the Fukushima disaster had been detected across the UK by
emergency monitoring stations in Oxfordshire and Glasgow.

The
agency that “the minutest” levels of radioactive iodine had been
detected at its air monitoring stations over the last nine days, but
they posed no risk to health.

At Fukushima, workers have been
pumping water into three reactors in a desperate bid to keep the fuel
rods from melting down. But Lahey, who was head of safety research for
boiling-water reactors at General Electric when the company installed
the units at the plant, said his analysis of radiation levels suggested
these attempts had failed at reactor two.

He said at least part of
the molten core, which includes melted fuel rods and zirconium alloy
cladding, seemed to have sunk through the steel “lower head” of the
pressure vessel and on to the concrete floor below.

“The
indications we have, from the reactor to radiation readings and the
materials they are seeing, suggest that the core has melted through the
bottom of the pressure vessel in unit two, and at least some of it is
down on the floor of the drywell,” Lahey said. “I hope I am wrong, but
that is certainly what the evidence is pointing towards.”

The
major concern when molten fuel breaches a containment vessel is that it
will react with the concrete floor of the drywell, releasing radioactive
gases into the surrounding area. At Fukushima, the drywell has been
flooded with seawater, which will cool any molten fuel that escapes from
the reactor and reduce the amount of radioactive gas released.

Lahey said: “It won’t come out as one big glob; it’ll come out like lava, and that is good because it’s easier to cool.”

The
drywell is surrounded by a secondary steel-and-concrete structure
designed to keep radioactive material from escaping into the
environment. But an earlier hydrogen explosion at the reactor may have
damaged this.

“The reason we are concerned is that they are
detecting water outside the containment area that is highly radioactive
and it can only have come from the reactor core,” Lahey added. “It’s not
going to be anything like Chernobyl, where it went up with a big fire
and steam explosion, but it’s not going to be good news for the
environment.”

The radiation level at a pool of water in the
turbine room of reactor two was measured recently at 1,000 millisieverts
per hour. At that level, workers could remain in the area for just 15
minutes, under current exposure guidelines.

A less serious core
meltdown happened at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania
in 1979. During that incident, engineers managed to cool the molten
fuel before it penetrated the steel pressure vessel. The task is a race
against time, because as the fuel melts it forms a blob that becomes
increasingly difficult to cool.

In the light of the Fukushima
crisis, Lahey said all countries with nuclear power stations should have
“Swat teams” of nuclear reactor safety experts on standby to give swift
advice to the authorities in times of emergency, with international
groups co-ordinated by the International Atomic Energy Authority.

The
warning came as the Japanese authorities were being urged to give
clearer advice to the public about the safety of food and drinking water
contaminated with radioactive substances from Fukushima.

Robert
Peter Gale, a US medical researcher who was brought in by Soviet
authorities after the Chernobyl disaster, in 1986, has met Japanese
cabinet ministers to discuss establishing an independent committee
charged with taking radiation data from the site and translating it into
clear public health advice.

“What is fundamentally disturbing the
public is reports of drinking water one day being above some limit, and
then a day or two later it’s suddenly safe to drink. People don’t know
if the first instance was alarmist or whether the second one was
untrue,” said Gale.

“My recommendation is they should consider
establishing a small commission to independently convert the data into
comprehensible units of risk for the public so people know what they are
dealing with and can take sensible decisions,” he added.

Read original article

Share